Money Isn't a False God

quote:

---

So what's wrong with us referring to money as a "false god" in a metaphorical sense? Isn't that essentially what Jesus and Paul are doing?

---

They weren't comparing money to a false god. We don't have the multitude of gods today that they had back then, so the reference is really weak. Our behavior concerning money or wealth is the issue, not the money or wealth.It isn't a good metaphor and is misleading. It would work better as a simile and not a metaphor. Compare someone's behavior towards money to those who worshiped false gods.Like I said earlier, when we water down the meaning of a false god to anything that gets in the way of doing God's will or we supposedly love more than our god, then that waters down the meaning of a god or worship, IMO. It also leaves the believer open to being used.Money isn't really similar to a false god.

That's why I said it would work better as a simile than a metaphor. It's the individual's behavior that is the issue, not the money itself.There are differences in our word worship. Meaning #1 was the norm for gods. Meaning #3 is more in line with love of money.While we use one word for these behaviors, the Bible uses different one. As you noted the Greek word for "love of money" deals with avarice and covetousness, which is closer to meaning #3. The Greek words for "worship" are more in line with meaning #1.So while we can say that a person worships money and people worshiped gods, it isn't the same behavior.The Judeo/Christian God does not require love in the 10 commandments, but does command that followers not bow down to other gods.In Deuteronomy 6:5, God requires love also.I don't feel that worshiping false gods is a good comparison to loving money.

I've given you notice that you have misconstrued my response. I will make this second effort to help you understand your mistake. If you still don't understand, I won't continue to address your misunderstanding.

quote:

---

So, I said that clearly "worshiping a false god" didn't have to mean prostrate worship, it had a more modern definition of simply "not letting material concerns... supersede more important spiritual concerns." You replied that it was appropriate to construe the admonition in that sense.

​

So, yes, you did agree that "worshiping a false god" doesn't mean the actual practice of worship, it just means a misallocation of priorities. Since you'll ask (just to be difficult, as usual), Message 27 is where you did that.

---

You are incorrect in your understanding.
Your Message 26 quoted my Message 25. Notice the difference between what I quoted in Message 27and what you quoted to defend your mistake Yours is missing the question you asked and I was responding to. I took that question to be referring to my comment from Message 25 that you quoted: My answer to your question was that it is an appropriate way to construe it.My next statement addressed the rest of your paragraph. Do you see the difference?
Do you understand my answer to your question?
Do you understand your mistake?

quote:

---

Because Artemis is the hunt, worshiping the hunt is worshiping the goddess. That's what it means to be the "god" of something.

---

They don't worship the hunt. They worship the goddess.

quote:

---

The 'that' in your question ('But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?') referred to PD's contention false gods were gods of surrounding nations, while the 'it' referred to the legitimate definition of "false gods".

​

This forms the question, "Do you not think (that supposing false gods were the gods of surrounding nations is) a pretty narrow way to construe (the legitimate definition of false gods) these days?".

​

And so - with this understanding, the first 'it' in PD's statement ('I think it is an appropriate way to construe it') refers to her plain understanding of Yirmyahu's use of the concept of "false gods" and the second 'it' refers a legitimate concept of false gods. Again, as I said in our first exchange, I may have misunderstood one of you, or the other or both.

---

You understood me correctly. Thank you.

Worshiping Mammon and Worshiping False GodsIMO, these are not the same.As I pointed out in Message 37 the our English word worship has two meanings.One deals with paying homage, sacrifice, ceremonies, etc. and the other deals with adoring reverence or love. In very simple terms, one is primarily physical application and the other is primarily emotional.Worshiping a god involved the physical practices of paying homage, sacrifice, ceremonies, etc.
Worshiping Mammon (Wealth) deals with an emotional obsession.An obsession with money or wealth is not the same as the rituals done for gods.For "money is a false god" to be a metaphor, there needs to be some likeness between money and false gods.

quote:

---

Beyond both inspiring an "adoring reverence or regard" (to use your own definitions of "worship") I don't think there is anything else on which to base the comparison.

---

How does currency inspire adoration?

quote:

---

But is a comparison beyond that being made when people say that money is worshiped as a false god? I might well describe someone as 'worshiping money' or as treating 'money as their god'. But I wouldn't mean anything more than the comparison stated above.

---

How does one treat currency like a deity?

quote:

---

I don't think that "currency"does inspire adoration as such. But people can be said to adore money and wealth in the sense of making the acquisition of it an end in itself and loving the acquisition and possession of it to the exclusion or detriment of other things. In that sense money can be adored, revered, worshiped etc. etc.

---

You're basically talking about an obsession. Worshiping false gods wasn't necessarily an obsession, but a religious practice. A very different mental process, IMO. In many cases paying homage to the god of the town you're passing through was no more important than paying a toll. Those preaching money as a false god aren't usually speaking of obsessions. By this standard, chocolate could be a false god if one seeks comfort from chocolate instead of seeking comfort from god.IMO, people don't substitute those things for God in their lives. The Hebrews very obviously did. Their god seemed to have abandoned them in their opinion so they found another god. There were plenty to choose from. Your car fails, you buy another car. Jobs, hobbies, children, illness, and life in general may keep us busy and unable to give as much time or money to the church as the church wants, but I don't feel people are substituting money for God.

quote:

---

We quite legitimately and meaningfully use words like "worship" or "idolise" and even "god" to mean things beyond their strict religiously related definition.

---

I understand that, but when used within the religion one would go with the religious meaning, especially when they are using the Bible to support the point.

quote:

---

For example David Beckham is (or at least was) referred to as a football god. He is arguably idolised and worshiped in a genuine sense of the word that has everything to do with a devout following and nothing to do with being a supernatural entity that needs to be appeased. The use of these terms in such a context is kinda metaphorical and kinda literal in a non-religious sense of the terms being used.

---

I understand that. It's an exaggeration. I'm not talking about secular use of religious terms.

quote:

---

But in the same sense that I know what someone means when they say that something or someone is worshiped or idolised in a more general sense I also know exactly what they mean when they describe money being worshiped as a false god. In this sense the phrase is entirely meaningful.

---

They don't describe money as being worshiped as a false god. They say money, among other things, is a false god. IOW, people are choosing money, power, etc. in place of God. I disagree.

quote:

---

In the overtly religious sense you seem intent on pursuing money is not worshiped and, on this entirely literal religious basis, cannot be described as a false god. But I am unconvinced that anybody other than you is claiming that such a position exists?

---

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say.If money is a false god, then there should be similarities between the two for that metaphor. We've already established there is no physical religious worship of money. The other idea left is that a person is choosing money in place of God as the Hebrews did when they went after other gods. I don't feel that people actually make that choice concerning money or power.

quote:

---

I think at least a couple of these apply to money. A person can pay honor to money and they can hold money with high regards which if I interpreted these definitions right means that you can worship money. If you worship something other than the true God it gets in the way of God. Therefore, it can be a false god.

---

Worship how? What does the worship entail?

quote:

---

Sorry, PurpleDawn, but I think I may have misinterpreted your question. Did you mean what physical activities do you do when you worship money? If so here is my response. When one worships money they hold it to a higher standard, as I posted earlier. Therefore, people rely on it for protection, safety, happiness, ect. just like you would for a god. Instead of looking to the actual God they look towards money for the things you would expect out of God. For this kind of worship you wouldn't offer sacrifices or anything like that because they do not have to please money in order to get its benefits. They just have to obtain lots of it and keep it safely hidden. So, they end up serving money like it is an actual God.
I hope all of this made sense!

---

I don't feel that people actually do that in reality. They aren't replacing God with money.So with your scenario a wealthy moral person who prays to God for protection, safety, and happiness is not worshiping a false god, but a wealthy moral person who does not pray to any god is actually worshiping a false god.What outward indications are there that someone is actually looking to money for protection, safety, happiness, etc. instead of God?

Money is a false god is a metaphor not a simile. To be a metaphor there needs to be a reason for the comparison. The phrase is used to suggest that people replace god with money as the Hebrews replaced their god with foreign gods.There are teachings in the Bible against avarice, but they don't present money as a false god.I don't see that people actually replace God with money or power.Worshiping money or love of money is a different issue, which is what I was trying to point out. (apparently ineffectively)

quote:

---

Well obviously when we talk about worshiping money as a false god we are not talking about an absolute and direct comparison with religious worship of supernatural beings. It is different, but remains meaningfully comparable nevertheless.

---

The phrase isn't: worshiping money as a false god. The phrase is: money is a false god or modern false gods are money, power, sex, etc.

quote:

---

The basis for comparison is the devotion, adoration, reverence and worship accorded to wealth and power and the pursuit of material gain. No?

---

I don't see that. How does that manifest itself in reality? These feelings may be towards wealthy people or powerful people, but I don't see it towards money itself.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that money is a false god in an absolutely comparable sense to Baal being a false god.

---

Supposedly it is a substitute for God just as Baal was.From Message 51
IMO, people don't substitute those things for God in their lives. The Hebrews very obviously did. Their god seemed to have abandoned them in their opinion so they found another god. There were plenty to choose from. Your car fails, you buy another car. Jobs, hobbies, children, illness, and life in general may keep us busy and unable to give as much time or money to the church as the church wants, but I don't feel people are substituting money for God. Whatever your heart clings or entrusts itself to.. IOW, they changed the meaning of a god to make it work.

quote:

---

When people say that money or the pursuit of material wealth is a false god they are talking about it being the focus of devotion at the expense of more spiritual or meaningful pursuits.

---

That's one comparison that's the same between money and ancient gods. Whether one is deemed a false god or not depends which side of the fence you're on.

quote:

---

But I still think you are taking the whole thing far too literally. Has anyone at all genuinely suggested that money is a god in the sense of being a supernatural entity directly comparable to, or in competitiopn with, Yahweh?

---

Not a deity, no. As I showed, they changed the definition of god to make it work.

I'm looking at the phrase "Money is a false god".My point is that a deity is a very specific being, not just anything one desires. Even when the word god is used creatively it is still describing a being.When the Hebrews thought they had been abandoned by God, they turned to the gods (deities) of other nations.So far in this discussion, I've discovered that Christianity has changed the meaning of god to include things that capture your heart or "where your heart is". In Biblical terms, money is not a false god; but when we change the meaning of god, pretty much anything can be a false god.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Can we agree that if I say "money is a false god"...

​

1) I am not making an absolute and like for like comparison of money with Thor, Zeus, Baal etc. etc.

---

I have no idea what you are doing. It usually depends on how you use it in a sentence or lesson. The point is about what Christianity is doing and I feel they are. Of course, as I've just noticed, today Christians don't feel that the ancient gods were deities at all. IOW, they didn't exist unlike their own god. So it was just worshiping an idol (inanimate object). Since they only considered them idols, they are comparing money to those false gods. That's probably why I have a problem with the statement. I consider false gods to have been someone else's god.

quote:

---

2) That I am referring to a devotion towards money and the pursuit of material wealth at the expense of more meaningful endeavours

---

Again, I don't know what you are referring to since you aren't using it in a sentence or lesson. Christianity isn't necessarily talking about obsession. The word worship can refer to an obsession, but I don't feel that the majority of people are obsessed.

quote:

---

3) That this second less literal usage of the phrase is perectly legitimate and meaningful.

---

Depends on how you use it. When people call money a modern false god, I disagree. I don't see the behavior to go along with it.I understand the metaphor, I'm saying I disagree with it. I wanted Christians to explain how this manifests itself in reality. Creatively we can say what we want, but like most things in Christianity, the reality doesn't fit.Looking at the way Christians responded here, the phrase is more of a way to lay guilt trip on people.